Who is the warrant for?

My person I suppose. But I fear the may presume that's me.

Yes, they will. They have to PROVE it, though.

So it seems I will end up in court anyway...

Not if you don't answer to THEIR name. Send that latter back, with another NOTICE OF MISTAKE.

Good idea. Refused for caused, returned for immediate discharge and closure. Along with another NOM?

That's all.

Right on. Thanks. I've already sent one NOM, with an affidavit, along with the BC and I returned their other offers. Do I need to send the exact same same affidavit with the NOM again?

Mathew Wolfe....its Notice of Mistake fyi

Right. There has been a mistake in identifying the surety of the person. It would appear that my first NOM, was not successful in correcting this mistake.

No...no...no...its NOT NOM!!

Please explain

He's saying that although we know what you mean when you type NOM you should always call things what they are in this forum.

Not a problem. was just trying to save on the typing. But I can type it out to alleviate confusion.

There is no saving on typing ever... Can the keyboard write to the viewer's why this is important? ;)

Use of acronyms is frowned upon only when they are not qualified first.

OK please pardon my next question if it seems stupid, I'm still trying to grasp this stuff. Would it be a bad idea to send another notice of mistake, along with a Co ditto nap acceptance, agreeing to pay the fine if they can provide evidence or proof that I am surety for the person? And how should I address the warrant?

What is a 'Co ditto nap'? I may have missed that information :/

Scott told you what to do....

It would be a bad idea to think you know better than Scott.

I don't think I know more than anyone. Just trying to learn. Thanks for all the help.

Co ditto nap ? :-D .....why not send a Co dickus Nappanus ? :-D

For fuck sakes !!!!!! :-D

Who were the letters for, and why did you open them? I might apologize for that with the NOM and return what they sent, envelope and all. Or just open it, read it, tape it back up and put Return to Sender on the envelope. Saves postage. Why do you care if it's discharged if it's not you? Sounds like a general appearance to me if you ask them to do something about it.

NEVER EVER WRITE MY DOCUMENTS AS A FUCKING ACRONYM! NOTICE OF MISTAKE, not text-tard gay-ass "NOM".

Mathew, I have tried to help you...I have shown you to the water, I cannot make you drink. I see you spending all your time philosophizing with folks of a slave mindset. I am not sure if you are trying to gauge where you are or gauge where they are. ALL the answers to your questions are here and by the way you are phrasing them, I can see that you haven't spent as much time READING as you have philosophizing with slaves. This group has REAL LIFE solutions! Not some cum dickus assus which I can assure that you didn't get from here. This also goes out to the newbies. A few of us have worked VERY hard in here. I specifically have asked a lot of dumb questions and done a lot of dumb things, but it wasn't due to laziness....it was due to my programming. Scott Duncan has told us from the beginning that he can only answer the questions asked...he cannot hold responsibility on your comprehension of the answer. I understand that now.... Mackximus has posted ALL of the stuff that has happened in here. It would be wise to read it. A few of us have been here since the beginning and could possibly refer you to the correct threads if needed, or possibly show you the right direction. But, I am not sure there is too much anyone can do if you don't take the time to actually LEARN what is going on. As Scott says "Your ignorance is not equal to knowledge"

I retract my assertion: :"Use of acronyms is frowned upon only when they are not qualified first." Sorry!

Acrophobia? :P

Chris, you will have to excuse my ignorance. I've learned much from you and others in this group, and it is greatly appreciated. Please understand my position. This is still new to me, and while I think I'm comprehending what I've read and what we have discussed in the past, it still doesn't alleviate my concerns. Perhaps this is more of my indoctrination. I've sent the notice of mistake that we discussed, and I followed the instructions to a T. Now I have a warrant. I'm not worried about spending a few days in jail, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm trying to ensure I comprehend every detail in this process. It appears that I have two options. Pay the fine or file another Notice of Mistake. It seems either options leads to a loss in my persons CDL. So please forgive me if I ask dumb questions.

This is an issue that involves a drivers license? If so have you resigned from government service? If you applied for that license you're SURETY.

WHO in the fuck REPRESENTS his person in here ? :/

^^BULLSHIT

They've missed it. What the fuck guys. Really?

The PERSON is SURETY for the PERSON? Just stop with that shit now.

How is the person surety for the person? The person is just a surety bond right? So whatever agent of their organization that signed it must be surety right? What am I missing?

There are times when it's beneficial to represent the person.. such as if you're a Plaintiff in a court case collecting on a contract, if you want to apply for essential utilities or other things you might want or need - say you order a package online and the delivery guy wants a signature. To never represent the person is to unnecessarily suffer. It's there for you to use to get what you want. Do you really think it matters if the average ignoramus thinks you're the person or not? It only really matters with judges and cops, when you're on defence.

Fuck, is this a ZOMBIE attack ? :D

Is that supposed to be an argument? I don't get it. :-/

Yeah, the person is subject to the rules... The person is required to get a Driver's Licence, and if a Driver's Licence exists it's because someone acted as the person to sign as the person. If you think a Driver's Licence existing makes you surety, you're still confused and think you're the person.

Fucking freedumber. Thanks for deleting your comment and making me look like I'm talking to myself. Idiot.

Who are you talking to? I deleted no comments.

I saw it

Wow you guys are insane...

Great a liar too.

Does this crap really pass as substantive debate around here? Way to avoid the points completely. Edit: Oh yeah, sorry, I did delete a comment but I replaced it with the same thing plus another sentence. I did that because I thought it would make it show up for you without a page refresh and didn't want to create unnecessary clutter with a bunch of one-liners.

There is no debate here. Scott is the source of knowledge. We lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way. Pretty simple.

:D

Have you ever heard about QUALIFYING my signature, Wakeup Itsalie ?

Of course, what about it?

Wait, "your" signature?

You do realize on anything like a Driver's Licence application it's the PERSON signing, right?

I do NOT represent PIERRE DAOUST, and never will I do.... I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for PIERRE DAOUST, because that is TRUE.... :P

ou do realize on anything like a Driver's Licence application you can QUALIFY your signature, right ? :/

Why would you think you need to? It's the PERSON signing.

Why are you afraid to represent the person to get what you want or need? Representing something doesn't mean it's you... "to speak or act for (someone or something)" http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent

Why would you BELIEVE that I am AFRAID to REPRESENT whatever ? :/

Represent To exhibit or expose; to appear in the character of. When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. To represent an individual means to stand in his or her place, acting as his or her substitute or attorney.

Why would I need to "BE" surety for that PERSON ? ....under what circumstance I should do that ?

Yeah.. so when you order something online and sign for a package you say "yes, that's me", so what? Do you really think there's value in arguing with the postman that it's not you? It's excessive and fearful to "never" represent the person, in my opinion.

You're not necessarily surety, you're just pretending momentarily...

I don't NEED to use PIERRE DAOUST to order something ONLINE....WHY would I do such of a STUPID thing ? :/

There is 2 other PERSONS in existence that I can use to do such of thing......CORPORATE persons.... :D

I also have MULES :D HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

How is using something to get what you want or need stupid? That's what it's there for... One fiction or another, it's still in fiction-land and not "you"...

The best answer I could say is: WHY CREATE JOINDER ? ....while I can AVOID it ? :P

Fiction is banned in here is it not?

Catain Pete, please release the Kraken!

Corporate persons are directed by persons, so either way, it's joinder, I think.

No, let me play a bit, it's good for my health :D

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb2zIR2rvRQ

So come and SUE PIERRE DAOUST for something that was done by SFC INC., and I'll show YOU that you think WRONG :D

Oh, I see, you're protecting the person that's not you...

Not, I treat it as a SLAVE, because it's a SLAVE :D

A slave dosen't order stuff ONLINE :D

A slave don't get to be represented :P

a slave don't get to have a Bank ACCOUNT :P

A slave don't get to run around town with MONEY in his fucking pocket :D

Suit yourself. I use it all as it benefits me, and opt out when I don't want the liability. (y)

But I am the sole AUTHORIZED administrator for that slave, so you better not fuck around with MY slave :D

How'd you get authorized to administrate something that belongs to the government?

You are confused Wakeup Itsalie, but you're ALMOST there.... that's why I am playing with you :D

My slave has a bank account..... :-D pursuant to 12 USC 411. FOR DEPOSIT ONLY!!!

BECAUSE THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT "DELIVERED" THAT THING TO ME :P

And I "NEVER" asked for it :D

So I don't NEED authorization from ANYONE to ADMINISTRATE that person...

Smells like lawyer friendly lingo. Just sayin'.

I usually just say I "use" it and don't claim a legal title like authorized or administrator.

SOLE AUTHORIZED administrator. Power of attorney is YOURS TO GIVE, it's NOT THEIRS TO REFUSE!

Me, the MAN, I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for PIERRE DAOUST.....I ANNOUCED it at large, I did NOT claimed that, no need to claim, it's what it is...... So how in the fuck they will "DEAL" with this ? :D

WHO WILL OBJECT TO THIS ? :P

They ignore it, because silence is not binding in contract law. :P

They can IGNORE it all they want, I won't :D

Oh really??? IGNORE an IRS or CRA BILL....then tell me its not binding!

That's not really a contract... that's a statutory obligation of the person...

Hey, Pete you need "authorization" from the guv'ment to "administrate"! :P Hahahaha!

So I guess they will send a NOTICE on it ? :D

Yeah, in accordance with the Act, that the person is bound by...

"An offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liability upon an offeree merely by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent. (M. P. Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston�s Law of Contract, 15th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at p. 61) � ... the silence of the offeree, his failure to reject an offer, cannot amount to acceptance without more. ... Although the offeror can dictate the time, place, and manner of acceptance ... it seems clear that this will not cover the situation where the offeror says that silence will be enough ... Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada has said that something more than a failure to reject an offer is required to constitute a binding contract. (G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2006) at p. 54.) � ... As a general rule, it is not enough for one to whom an offer is made to assent inwardly; the offeree must communicate acceptance to the offeror ... Ordinarily, therefore silence will not operate as an acceptance even though the offeree should prove an intention to accept. This is not a technicality but part of the requirement of a bargain. No reasonable person, on receiving a proposal that looks for a reply, considers the bargain concluded until the manifestation of assent. Nor will a reasonable offeror ordinarily consider that silence on the part of the offeree manifests the latter�s acceptance. It would plainly be an imposition for an offeror to write to a stranger offering to sell an encyclopedia and adding that the latter�s silence will be considered an acceptance. ... (S. M. Waddams, The Law of Contracts, 6th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2010) at p. 67-68) � The requirement that there has to be an acceptance cannot be avoided or waived by the offeror�s saying that the offeree will be assumed to have accepted the offer if no rejection is received by the offeror. This rule is a reflection of the very general principal that people are not to have obligations thrust upon them without their consent and that, in general, people have to indicate their consent by some positive action. The principle is expressed in the statement that �silence cannot be consent�. (Angela Swan, Canadian Contract Law, 2nd ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009) at p. 234.) [468] This principle continues to be uniformly applied by Canadian courts. For example: Schiller v. Fisher; Nu Towne Dev. Inc. V. Kingsmont Properties Ltd., 1981 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 593 at 598-599, 124 D.L.R. (3d) 577; Pumphrey v. Carson, 2002 NSSC 170 (CanLII), 2002 NSSC 170 at paras. 19-20, 206 N.S.R. (2d) 338; Gellen v. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia et al, 2005 BCSC 1615 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1615 at para. 17, 21 E.T.R. (3d) 146; Vollmer v. Jones 2007 CanLII 7999 (ON SC), (2007), 36 R.F.L. (6th) 340 at para. 46, 155 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1079 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J. (Fam. Ct.))."

I told you! :P Vermin stuff!

It's called contract law...

Clubhouse rules for a club you aren't part of.

I am SO glad I am not part of that clubhouse, and those rules.

Well, I wasn't the one who brought up allegedly-legally-binding Notices...

Only for the purpose of removing presumption. After that, it's ok to kill them.

:D

Scott, can a notice create JOINDER?

No. It's a TENDER FOR LAW just like every other NOTE (Note - Notice... everybody get that?)

oh fuck!!! Yup! :-D :-D

That is what I thought! :D I am posting a BILL! It's, in fact, a TENDER FOR LAW!

and if its sent REGISTERED MAIL, it is REGISTERED in their jurisdicition! Title is transferred upon POSTING!!! :-D

and its not my fault

I've seen courts say that acceptance of a registered letter does not imply acceptance of the document inside, just of the envelope. :-/

So does parking in a NO PARKING zone only indicate acceptance of the sign, not the notice? HOw the fuck is that possible?

"I saw a sign, but I didn't accept the notice?"

HUH????

Wakeup Itsalie I've seen courts say that acceptance of a registered letter does not imply acceptance of the document inside, just of the envelope. Ok, so if the document inside the envelop, has not been accepted, I guess the one that opened the envelop told the one that sent the envelop about it ? :/

Is that FAIR ? :/

I don't know if a sign would be seen the same way - the message or offer is in plain view. And often signs are on private property or supported by municipal bylaws that bind persons.

ALL covered in my PROPER NOTICE article. If you ask where it is, I'll just ban you for being too stupid to live.

Perhaps the envelope was never opened... or perhaps it was empty. Can you prove it was opened, or wasn't empty? Was there an obligation to accept or respond once proven received and viewed? In the case of court-recognized contract law, it would seem generally not. But some types of documents and instruments might fall under certain Acts or common law...

Perhaps the envelope was never opened.??? ... :D How incompetent can you be ? :D

Now, is it my FAULT if some PUBLIC SERVANTS do not open envelops ? :D

Mathew.... "you will have to excuse my ignorance." Its not ignorance that concerns me...its that you are looking for someone to give you the answers without doing any work. "it still doesn't alleviate my concerns." Then you didn't do your homework "I've sent the notice of mistake that we discussed, and I followed the instructions to a T. Now I have a warrant. I'm not worried about spending a few days in jail, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm trying to ensure I comprehend every detail in this process." How are you going to do that? The answers are all here....you MUST read!! "So please forgive me if I ask dumb questions." You aren't asking dumb questions....I am upset that you have used a lot of my time and not followed through on your part of the agreement. You said you would read, yet now you require someone else to find the answer for you....its not fair to my VALUE!

So lets open it, JUDGE :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Lets open the little unopened envelop JUDGE, to see what's inside :D, and I wish you could fire that lettle public employee on the spot, for DRAMATIC incompetence :D

Is it not an established FACT that a certain VALUE that is inside the envelop has been REGISTERED and POSTED as TRANSFERRED to another party???

Oh, there was NOTHING in these 47 envelops I have sent ? ....ooohhhhh the fucking LIAR :D

Perhaps the Kourt in which you claimed to have seen this is not a Kourt of competent jurisdiction....

Chris Evan your right. I have not read enough as I am still uncertain. I'll not wast any more of this groups precious time. I thank you all for the time you have spend trying to show me the way.

The funny part is that you will see Wakeup change his mind if ANYONE, other incompetent crooks, uses those sneaky techniques. "That shit will not apply to the common folk, because contract law says so" . Hahaha!

Here's the case, if you're interested: " Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the documents does not amount to an �acceptance� of any legitimate bill of exchange that might be in the envelope. �Acceptance� in the Bills of Exchange Act is a technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the envelope. The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit." http://canlii.ca/t/23nxk

But that is NOT what I do, not at all :/

HAHAHAHA!!!....who the fuck would have this crazy idea of sending a completed bill of exchange, without ANNOUNCING its coming before ? COVERING all angles to AVOID these kind of stupid things to happen, exist ! ....you must know that, Wakeup Itsalie ? :D

Wakeup ?....is he gone ? :/

So, receipt aside, the question is how do courts view notices not supported (or supported) by an existing Act or common law? I'll look for Scott's article before commenting further on that.. :)

I guess, the first step, is to ASK if I can use the SURETY of the person I happen to have, to DISCHARGE that PUBLIC debt, to anyone who might send a PUBLIC debt to the person, I happen to have ?...no ?? :(

What ?.....the question is WHY THE FUCK YOU WANT TO GO TO COURT ?

Wakeup Itsalie, I am ready for you, or any LAWYER that might join this group :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :D

You were talking about sending a notice, not asking... Courts hold the judicial power, so any legal notice would need to be supported there to be effective... Of course if it's just a 'courtesy' notice that won't be enforced then it won't matter.

:D

... "ready for me?" I'm just after the truth, not a battle or competition...

Well, the TRUTH is: I don't NEED to go to court.....that is the TRUTH... :P

Are you a LAWYER, Wakeup Itsalie ?

No I just seek to understand

Ok, only LAWYERS needs to go to court, so if you're NOT, why the fuck you want to go there ? :/

Why send a notice?

To NOTIFY...something :D

Why you ask this ? :/

Because a notice is legal process, which usually seeks to be effective at law, and possibly court.. :-/

Ok, but before it ends up in COURT, you will surely agree that the ENVELOPS needs to be OPENED ?...right ? :D

Well a courtesy notice doesn't need to be proper, lawful or effective.. I agree

Pete, It depends on the court rules that bind the person being asked to attend...

I am the SOLE authorized administrator for the PERSON, so I get to decide TERMS.....if they OPEN the envelop I am sending, the COURT won't be needed, I guarantee that :D

Pete, they could very well be dissuaded from compelling the person to appear, even if lawfully entitled to

I don't know if calling oneself the sole authorized administrator is accurate, though... I believe a judge can jail the person without a signature or other authorization from you.

Jailed for WHAT ?

This is ADMINISTRATION we are talking about, not CRIMINAL shit ?

Oh, you don't presume to be able to administrate criminal matters? I thought the "sole" was all-encompassing...

YES IDIOT....but it's DIFFERENT, fucking tard ?

Fuck....

I say lawyer as well....

He seems to be very protective of that "administration" spot, hahaha! That's only for "judges", boo, be careful!

Well, assuming they made up some violation for the person, I don't think the judge needs authorization to jail it.

I am just wary of claiming legal titles and positions that potentially can't be enforced...

What legal titles ? :/

"I am the SOLE authorized administrator for the PERSON, so I get to decide TERMS"

CRIMINALS goes to jail, well, not all of them but most :D

Yes... !!...and ?

Wakeup Itsalie: "I am the SOLE authorized administrator for the PERSON, so I get to decide TERMS" WHAT is wrong with this ?

I'm just skeptical you can tell the judge what to do in all cases

Yes, the ONLY one that can CONTROL shit :D

WHAT JUDGES ?....fuck, why do you bring a fucking JUDGE in all we say ?

Because they hold the judicial power to fine and imprison....

But Pete, you need "authorization" from a magical "authority", which can never be you. Hahaha! He is a THEIST, he believes in government GOD! Hahaha!

There is NO fucking JUDGES, first, if there is someone, it has to be a fucking TRUSTEE....

So if they want to call a fucking business meeting, with a TRUSTEE, and its EMPLOYEES, I NEED TO GET PAID FOR MY TIME FIRST.....

And when I'll show up, I'll show up as THE FUCKING SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR, and it won't be MY FUCKING FAULT :P

What's so difficult to get in all this ? :(

That must be WHY, I receive NO INVITATION to attempt these business meetings :D

Wakeup....you have MANY beliefs. Belief is the END of all thought!

But he is so close :D

Maybe he has a CONFIDENTIALITY oath on some shit ? :D

I can smell a CHECK that prevents him from thinking right, hahaha!

hahaha....and what do TRUSTEES do???? DISCHARGE OBLIGATIONS!

He does not want to learn. Can't anyone see? :/

This is why "believers" are unteachable.

I haven't seen enough evidence that I can control what I didn't create, force discharge, etc... but it's an interesting 'belief'.

THAT is why you are unteachable.

Yeah....I am on the unteachable band wagon too now....any room left?

I've tried a lot of crap and none of it worked.. but I remain open to the idea.

LOL....

This is'n something you "try". This is KNOWLEDGE.

Ok, would you like to go step by step, Wakeup Itsalie ? :D

I've tried everything in this group

FUCK! Believers ALWAYS think ritual and belief are the same as knowledge!

RE:"I've tried everything in this group" -Liar. Proof or it didn't happen.

:D ....ok, so if you don't mind, we'll RELEASE you, thanks for TRYING :D

CRA won't discharge for me :(

What a waste of VALUE.

RE:"I've tried everything in this group" - LIAR.

Released !!!....you guys should hear the funny noise I make when I release someone in here, I think I'll make a video and some CD's on it :D

Yes... Go with Dean :D

http://blogs.mydevstaging.com/blogs/dadabase/files/2014/04/jLZz4Na.gif

It's something like....ppppppuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhhhh, and then at the end it makes a pplloookkkkkkkk.....and then you can hear these carps going like flok flok flok flok.....

Mathew....do as you wish, however, for the record, our agreement was that you would read in exchange for the VALUE I offered. That is my gripe. :-D But carry on!!!

"CRA won't discharge for me" OF COURSE THEY WON'T, idiot, That's not their FUCKING JOB.......what an idiot !!! :(

Here he is in PM.....hahaha

He claims to have done "everything in this group" but doesn't know our "publish PM's schtick?

Can you prove an account administrated to zero balance at CRA? Wakeup Itsalie Removed from group?? weak Wakeup Itsalie whatever, bye

Oppsss. in Private with me too :D Wakeup Itsalie Can you prove an account administrated to zero balance at CRA? Removed from group?? weak whatever, bye

"I've tried everything in this group" Well, he seems to have NEVER tried to send PROPER NOTICE for anything, he had not even read it. ALL believers are LIARS.

LOL :D

Great read. Belief kills all thought. Critical and otherwise.